There is widespread opposition in the West to the upcoming strike against the Syrian regime's headquarters. Indeed, the citizens in the Western states do not want to become implicated in a new conflict which they understand nothing about, at a time when the bitterness of the Iraqi and Afghan experiences can still be tasted by the political and military institutions. Some cautioned that by bombing some of the regime's positions, the United States would be fighting in the trench of Al-Qaeda, seeing how Bashar al-Assad has been proclaiming day and night that he is fighting the Takfiris and terrorists, thus pointing to the joint interests with the West in the battle he is waging on one hand, and the love-hate relationship dominating his thinking towards the West on the other. Others are saying that the military operation merely aims to clear the consciences of the narcissistic Western elite that resented the images of children suffocated by poisonous gas, without the governments participating in the strike even considering a regime change or even the imposition of deterring sanctions on it. This would allow the United States' politicians and allies to continue watching the daily killing of the Syrians with a clear conscience, as they did everything in their power to stop the brutal acts being committed by backward governments against more backward populations. Worst of all is what was said about a small war whose cost would not exceed $140 million, which goes in line with the American economic situation and the imminent date of the "government closure" due to the financial crisis. These narcissistic and mercantile factors converge with the necessity to save face against a bloody dictator, who violated the rules of the game watched by the entire world without great interest. All of this, or most of it, is true. And it would be naïve to think that the Americans and their allies will act as the air force of the Free Syrian Army and carry out their missions while placing the field and political considerations of the revolutionaries at the top of their agenda. The strike will solely serve the American and Western interests and considerations. On the other hand, political realism requires the following exercise: After recognizing all the above – among other unforeseen facts – how can the Syrian opposition benefit from the upcoming strike as long as it will be staged regardless of the direct and urgent motives? In other words, we are on the threshold of a key development at the level of the Syrian revolution, one whose consequences are still unclear. But it is very important not to waste the opportunities it will provide to push the revolution forward, towards the achievement of new gains and the enhancement of what it has accomplished until this day, which is not to be taken lightly. And regardless of the Syrian regime's expected announcement of its victory over the "imperialistic attack" – which is usually done by this region's tyrants ever since the "victory" over the 1967 aggression with the sustainment of "progressive regimes" – the Syrian opposition is invited to use this attack and ensure political, military and media momentum. The first step at this level might be the confirmation of the foundations based on which the revolution erupted in the first place, i.e. the attempt by Syrian society to pull itself out of the mafia-sectarian monster's mouth. The issue is not about Obama's reluctance, the opposition of the British Labor Party, the flow of oil or Israel's security. The issue is about the position towards a regime which allowed itself to exterminate its citizens and transfer it crisis to the neighboring states, thus distancing itself from any concept of policy or rule, even from human and civilizational dealing. The moral discourse about the preservation of the country, the condemnation of Western aggression and rallying around the homeland, seems eager to eventually converge with the justification of the murderer's crimes, whether or not those promoting this discourse are aware of it.
